Archaeologica.org

We've already established that he's a condescending, arrogant, asshole. Now, we have to add foolish and superior?

Okay, got my vote there even though, like TJ, I pity him. Just thin of all he's missing in life by living with those damn blinders. Everything is so open to exploration and he refuses to look at any of it. Maybe it's just easier for him to go through life without having to think.

Or am I suppose to vote for you and Minimalist as my favorite assholes? If that's the case, sorry my husband has to get my vote.

Oh, there will be no stopping arch, now. He's found another crackpot who made a movie!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

A new documentary by a Canadian Jewish filmmaker argues that the Exodus did happen, but that it took place a couple of hundred years before the commonly-accepted time frame.

The Exodus Decoded, a two-hour documentary by award-winning Israeli-born filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, suggests that the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt as recounted in the Bible occurred around 1500 BCE, about 230 years before the date most commonly accepted by contemporary historians.

None of the relics - or arguments - cited in the made-for-TV, state-of-the-art film, which is the result of six years of research, has been accepted by archeologists or any prominent archeological institution as proof for Jacobovici's theory.

Hmmm....where have I heard this argument before?

"I think it is a mistake when you have a situation in archeology where some academics have set themselves up as some sort of priesthood between us and the Bible," he added.

I'm sure arch will be glued to his tv when this one runs!

nice to be wanted and remembered

Oh, there will be no stopping arch, now. He's found another crackpot who made a movie!

unless it shows on AFN i doubt if i will be able to see it.

why pity me? i am the one who believes the truth and am not stumbling around in the dark. i don't rely on non-believing arch. and researchers to lead me astray. you have yet to prove to me that your people are honest, objective, unbiased, etc.

i have shown that they are the exact opposite of those characteristics but you believe them anyways, i am not the fool.

so i am the one who feels sad for you

Ah so we can assume that you are in the service? The mysterious arch, gives away a little of his secrecy. An american instructor on an army base? Seems like a person so sure of himself wouldn't feel the need to be so mysterious. You've never told us anything about yourself, Arch. Why is that?

archaeologist wrote:why pity me? i am the one who believes the truth ...

If nothing else, you sure have one hell of a knack for irony.

heh-heh....now I've got him figured out!

Ah so we can assume that you are in the service

that would be a wrong assumption. my apartment gets the AFN channel on cable so i get to view it as well.

You've never told us anything about yourself, Arch. Why is that?

i am a very private person , nothing mysterious.

now I've got him figured out!

so you think.

a couple quotes here:

1. backs up what i have been saying about the dishonesty that gores on fromthe non-biblical camp--

"Niels peter Lemche assumes that the sojourn and exodus story is legendary and concludes that the material is devoid of historical value. He asserts, ' it is generally acknowledged by scholars that the traditions about israel's sojourn in egypt and the exodus of thre israelites are legendary and epic in nature. the very notion that a single family could in the course of a few centuries develop into a whole people, a nation, consistingof hundreds of thousands of individuals, is so fantastic that it deserves no credence from a historical pointof view." pg. 108

2. this one is about the double standard that takes place with the Bible being on the short-end of the stick:

"What can be concluded from the normal Egyptian scribal practice of omitting the names of Pharaoh's enemies? Surely historians would not dismiss the historicity of Thutmose III's Megiddo campaign because the names of the kings of Kadesh and Megiddo are not recorded. It seems unlikely that Thutmose and his scribes were not aware of their enemies names. No one denies that there was a battle at KAdesh between the forces of Ranses II and Muwatalis because the latter's name were omitted does not appear in Egyptian records of the events. We cannot think the names were omitted because these documents were written by later historians whowere ignorant of the details they wrote about because the texts cited above all come from from dated documents written during the lifetime of the kings whose actions are recorded . pg. 110

to place the Bible under different standards is just wrong. the same standards need to be applied to all ancient documents or you are just being hypocritical and not intersted in the truth.

To be honest, there is probably dis-honesty in both camps. Everyone has an agenda, especially bible believers. What you posted means nothing.

Lemche (and Thompson) are the foremost exponents of the True Minimalist school. Dever spent 60 pages of "What Did The Bible Writers Know" blasting them and Finkelstein makes his feelings clear and that quote has already been posted. As long as the Tel Dan stelae inscription is still regarded as referring to "The House of David" Lemche's position is not going to make headway with archaeologists.

However, arch, you suffer the same problem as Lemche. In your zeal to pretend that the bible is 'divine' you must ignore the evidence which has come out of the ground.

Frankly, Lemche's theory has far less serious holes in it than your's...and there is an emerging school of thought which holds that the reconstruction of the Tel Dan stelae was made in such as way as to fictionalize the 'HOuse of David' inscription. BTW, even with the current translation in vogue, Tel Dan does not support the biblical tale.

there is an emerging school of thought which holds that the reconstruction of the Tel Dan stelae was made in such as way as to fictionalize the 'HOuse of David' inscription. BTW, even with the current translation in vogue, Tel Dan does not support the biblical tale.

no matter how much you deny it the truth remains the same. that isonly your opinion about the stele and guess what your abiltity to deny reality has improved.

Do you even read your own stupid book?

Your precious book of bullshit claims that Joram and Ahaziah were killed by a rebel named Jehu who got all sorts of accolades from the slimebags who wrote the bible a few centuries later for taking out the Omride Dynasty.

The Tel Dan inscription recounts the deaths in battle of Joram and Ahaziah in conflict with the Kingdom of Aram-Damascus.

Given the useless nature of the bible as history I'll go with the stelae. Perhaps you should go back and review what you think you believe in. You seem to be getting confused.

Do you even read your own stupid book?

see you already have drawn a conclusion which means you can't be objective anymore thus you can't be scientific.

one failure of science is that at some point you have to decide what is right and what is wrong. objectivity ends at the decision of what you choose to believe thus science can not be objective because too many researchers have made decisions prior to the experiment, the discussion or the debate.

objectvity is just a sham to add restrictions which in turn limit the data which in turn corrupts the conclusions which in turns leads to false answers.

Horseshit.

You're so ready to denounce science but you don't even know that the inscription, which on one hand gives the only apparent non-biblical reference to your boy, David...or at least his successors....also completely dismisses the bible account.

That fact causes me no problem because at best the bible is a historical novel.

You need to study up a bit. The gold finish is coming off the buckle of your bible belt.

the only apparent non-biblical reference to your boy, David...or at least his successors

i don't remember if i put the quote here or not but it has been said that the reason there are so little writing recovered form the Davidic/solomic period is that they still used papyrus which unless stored properly, does not last.

so to say that extra-biblical sources do not confirm this period would be an inadequate statement as much has been lost. to expect more is unrealistic. then to make judgments without all the evidence or lack thereof taken into consideration is just folly.